• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mfbukowski last won the day on July 5

mfbukowski had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,139 Excellent

About mfbukowski

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,546 profile views
  1. We can’t live other people’s EVENTS But we can live their STORIES Kid in class: “History is BORING” Make it into a movie, and it comes alive
  2. And what could better capture the fall of mankind than their story of loss of innocence and THEN as you so briefly but eloquently point out, the anguish, the unspeakable anguish, of the loss of a child- said to be perhaps the worst mental pain mankind can endure- and then to know that the killer was your other son! What do you do? We have children who go astray sometimes, and we love them, sometimes we can love them back into the fold, or into the family circle and overcome the alienation But under these circumstances? What events could better capture the plight of mankind and the fall from innocence this story portrays? And as you say, I think it is essential to think in terms of these events AS stories, and as metaphors we can take into our lives. Events are abstract- "Earthquake in Turkey Kills Hundreds" - we might pause for a moment and think "Oh! those poor people!" and get on with our day. But then we read the next day of an individual with a name digging through rubble and finding his daughter- and we are all uplifted. But what of the hundreds of nameless souls digging through the rubble who did NOT find their loved ones? That is where the anguish is. Each of those is a true event that "really happened" which caused untold- literally- human agony, but we don't know about it or feel about it until it is a "story". One can imagine a news editor saying to a reporter "But where is the STORY?" Unrecorded pain changes no one else's life. But when it becomes a "story" - that is what captures human interest. That is the power of parables which everyone knows "never happened" yet the truth- and I mean that word "truth" - is, that parables happen every day in the world around us, and we often live them ourselves- repeatedly! So where is the line between "what really happened" and the IMPORTANCE of what really happened captured in a story? Art imitates life and life imitates art, but events do not become memorable until they become art. It is the images we remember. We may not remember or care about the politics or the immediate events which caused the Berlin wall to be erected, but that wall as portrayed in art, in photos, in stories of bravery and escape, will be remembered forever. Beliefs about events change people- events themselves do not change lives unless we are directly impacted by the events and have our own "story" to tell. Think of 9-11. We cannot fathom the depth of human tragedy caused by that event, but what we really remember is how it related to us personally, AND the stories which came out afterward. We might remember where we were when we found out- we might remember watching TV and the horror we felt and then the rush of patriotism which followed for a short while, but soon forgotten. But it is the images which stick. It is the art which etches it into our memories. It is the story of the passengers on the plane rushing the attackers, knowing that doing so was suicidal, and yet the did it to save others. Those people truly gave it all for others, but knowing that their lives were already over, they dedicated their deaths to saving others. THAT is what we remember, the story. There is no human interest until it is created by a story which etches itself into human consciousness.
  3. Hope for things was kind enough to send me a link to a Ted talk which says from a scientific point of view what I and others have been saying from a philosophical point if view. Just more evidence that Bukowski is not hallucinating......too much I have been trying to embed the video but it won't work- so here is the link https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality
  4. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no- it's a simple question. The problem is the question xxx xxxx.
  5. No, actually you had it right the first time.
  6. Thanks
  7. Nevermind- I found it as a pdf but I cannot link to it for some reason- but here it is from another source https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/1974-are-christians-mormon-truman-madsen/
  8. Thanks for that quote- do you have a source for that? I have been saying that for years. We discussed it most recently on the Nietzsche thread.
  9. Pure ignorance I have already answered it and it is there for all to see. Read the posts.
  10. IF that is true I own it. No problem. I still have and will continue to have a temple recommend, be a temple worker, attend church and do my several callings under supervision of my Stake President, who is my immediate priesthood leader in my callings, and who is aware of my views. In fact he sees things much as I do. So your comment and H's are irrelevant when it comes down to anything regarding my membership in the church. As I have said, the General Authorities do not take philosophical nuances into considerations in their statements or considering worthiness for anything. They do not need to. This church is about orthopraxis BUT it is NOT true that I "part ways" with "the church and its leaders" except when they are mistaken. And yes they readily admit that they are, and can be, mistaken. We do not believe in infallibility in this church no matter how hard you try to represent it that way. This church is about orthopraxis and not orthodoxy. You and H, as always with ex-mo's are arguing against your own old selves and what your erroneous conceptions of what YOU THOUGHT the church was about. You were wrong then and you are wrong now about what the church is, its potential, and apparently even what beliefs are required to be a member. To be a member one must honestly pass a baptismal interview and a temple recommend interview. Neither of those interviews have questions about moral realism. Also know that even IF there statements which are always true, that does not somehow confirm moral realism which is the question here. Truth is relevant and relative to a community of believers and within contexts as explained in D&C 93 where it speaks of "spheres" of truth. I have repeatedly said on this board that direct knowledge of the truth comes only through revelation of things as they are- direct experience- and that therefore linguistic representations of direct experience are not possible There ARE statements which are "always true" and those may be construed as "absolute truth". But you will note that GA's always speak of absolute truth being revealed truth and I agree with that completely. But revealed truth is non-linguistic and therefor statements about WHAT truth is must never capture the whole of it.
  11. Lies. OR Dreadfully misinformed. Sad actually either way
  12. Uh, no it's not. It is not a yes or no issue by any means
  13. Just for those who might be deluded by honorentheos, this quote has nothing to even do with moral realism Saying that "God speaks once" is in itself only a single statement by a single general authority and is not therefore necessarily doctrinal But worse than that, it doesn't even reference moral realism God could say it once and one might just as well conclude that God is therefore a moral relativist than a moral realist- the frequency of repetition of a statement has nothing to do with if it says something about realism or not. Rorty below, has made these statements as well only once- why repeat himself? And yet of course he is a relativist. Trumping other opinions is also irrelevant- I think Rorty trumps other opinions as well and again, he is a relativist. But even beyond all that, the notion that moral realism and moral anti-realism come down to a simple yes or no simply displays ignorance The arguments are highly nuanced, complex, and have been argued for hundreds of years. General Authorities have better things to do than acquaint themselves with the philosophies of men and we know we are a lay church. They have no need of philosophy to know what is true and the entire question of whether or not Mormons are moral realists assumes much more than is justified by our faith. In fact GA's constantly show a nuanced understanding of morals without deciding if they are moral realists or not Is it always wrong to kill someone? Is abortion always wrong? How will God judge someone who has an abortion when the health of the mother is involved? What of killing in self defense? What of war? What of nuanced situations in any of these circumstances? And the deciding factor is that Mr H does not have the requisite background in philosophy to even discuss these issues without over simplfying them to the point of absurdity Here is one passage discussing some of the nuances of moral realism vs anti-realism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I have underlined just one section which easily points to some of the nuances in these positions In short, Honorentheos' statements simply betray his ignorance. This is hardly a yes-no issue! And saying that "God says it once" doesn't exactly have anything to do with the argument that General Authorities even make. I would be surprised if there are any references to "moral realism" advocating it as a philosophical position anywhere in Mormon literature, much less making that statement as a statement of doctrine. But none of this has anything to do with some statement of morality being "always true". I think that the Golden Rule is nearly always true for example, but that has nothing to do with it being a metaphysical invisible TRVTH floating around somewhere. I think it just nearly always works. You always should treat people the way they want to be treated- but even that has exceptions. If a person wants to get out of prison for killing scores of people should he get out? Even if he says he wants all killers released from prison? There is an exception for every rule. But as is clear even a moral realist may accept exceptions to rules. It is a very nuanced position
  14. I heartily recommend Chantal Bax on Wittgenstein who has a new take on subjectivity- this book is a major contribution to philosophy in this area and sets the new standard for defining the problem The book is very technical though and not for the average reader. On the other hand- if you can handle it go directly to chapter 6 and avoid all the arguments with which you may already be familiar. I think that even in the first couple of paragraphs she gives away the core conclusion if you project out the logic required by her statements. https://www.amazon.com/Subjectivity-After-Wittgenstein-Post-Cartesian-Philosophy/dp/1441127321 https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-06.text.pdf In short it shows I think conclusively that postmodern ethics can easily accommodate agency and choice of social mores without some kind of metaphysical reliance on realism. In other words, those who assert a dichotomy between moral realism and moral anti realism based on social forces will have to refute Bax Not gonna happen by folks on this board